Work motivation of teachers : relationship with transformational and transactional leadership behavior of college principals Volume 8 Issue 2 Spring 2010 Posted On Fri, Sep 03 2010 15:01:42 Authors: Louis George , Tara Sabhapathy

Introduction The strength of an educational system largely depends upon the quality of its teachers. It is a teacher who helps to transform an individual into a person of imagination, wisdom, human love and enlightenment, and institutions into lampposts of posterity, and the country into a learning society. The National Policy on Education (1986) has rightly remarked “The status of the teacher reflects the socio-cultural ethos of a society; It is in this context that today a teacher occupies a unique and significant place in any society. It is observed that, with the expansion of higher education over the years in terms of number of universities and colleges and the student strength, its quality and standards have fallen. This issue has engaged the attention of educationists for several years and various committees and commissions have suggested measures for improving the quality of higher education. The Radhakrishnan Commission in 1948, the Kothari Commission in 1964-66, the National Commission on Teachers in higher education, the Government of India documents like Challenges of Education, Policy on Education (1986) and the Review Committee of the NPE (1986), known as the Acharya Ramamurthy Committee, expressed their concern over the deterioration of the standards of higher education and recommended several steps for bringing about improvement in the quality of education at this stage. Among all the factors responsible, for the deteriorating standards in higher education, the “teacher” has been identified as the key factor. His characteristics, qualifications, his attitude towards the profession, his competency, his professional skills, his capacity for leadership and motivation to work affect the quality of education. The modern society very badly needs teachers who are not only knowledgeable but also highly motivated and committed to their profession and sincere in their efforts for doing good to the society. Concept of work motivation People can motivate themselves by seeking, finding and carrying out work, which satisfies their needs or at least leads them to expect that their goals will be achieved. There are two types of motivation namely intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation stems from a direct relationship between the doer and the task and it is usually self-applied. These are the self- generated factors, which influence people to behave in a particular way or to move in a particular direction. These include, responsibility, freedom to act, scope to use and develop skills and abilities, interesting and challenging work and opportunities for advancement. Feelings of achievement, accomplishment and competence-derived from performing one’s job are examples of intrinsic motivators. It is related to ‘psychological’ rewards which are those that can be usually determined by the actions and behaviors of individual managers. Second, people can be motivated by the management through such methods as pay, promotion, praise etc, This can be termed as “ Extrinsic motivation” and stems form the work environment external to the task and is usually applied by others or someone other than the person being motivated. This is what is done to or for people to motivate them. Extrinsic motivators can have an immediate and powerful effect but this will not necessarily last for long. Extrinsic motivation is related to ‘tangible’ rewards and is often determined at the organizational level and is usually outside the control of the individual managers. The intrinsic motivators, which are concerned with the quality of working life, are likely to have a deeper and long-term effect, because they are inherent in individuals and not imposed from outside. Work is of special concern to the study of motivation. From a psychological point of view, work is an important source of identity, self-esteem and self-actualization. It provides a sense of fulfillment for an employee by clarifying one’s value to the society. However paradoxically it can also be a source of frustration, boredom and feelings of meaninglessness that determine the characteristics of the individual and the nature of work. Individuals evaluate themselves according to what they are able to accomplish. If they see their job as hindering their potential and achievement of the same, it often becomes difficult for them to remain motivated and maintain a sense of purpose at work. Campbell and Pritchard, (1976) defined work motivation in terms of a set of independent/dependant variable’s relationships that explains direction, aptitude, and persistence of an individual’s behavior holding constant effects of aptitude, skill and understanding of the task, and the constraints operating in the environment. Steers R,Porter L. (1991) defined work motivation as that which drives and sustains human behavior in working life. Pinder (1998) described work motivation as a set of internal and external forces that initiates work related behavior and determines its form, direction, intensity and duration. The noteworthy feature of this description is that motivation is defined as an energizing force-it is what induces actions in employees and second, this force has an implication for the form that is, what the employee is motivated to accomplish, direction that is how they will attempt to accomplish it, intensity, that is, how hard they will attempt to accomplish it and duration, that is, when they will stop that behavior. Work motivation is an action that stimulates an individual to take a course of action, which will result in attainment of some goal or satisfaction of certain psychological

needs of the individual himself. In the present study work motivation is conceptualized in terms of 6 factors namely dependence, organizational orientation, work group relations, psychological work incentives, material incentives and job situation (Agarwal K.G 1988). Concept of leadership behavior Leadership behaviors can be broadly described to be as transformational and transactional leadership behavior. In the past 20 years, a sustained body of research has accumulated on transformational-transactional leadership theory. This distinction was first made by James McGregor Burns in 1978.To Burns, the difference between transformational and transactional leadership is in terms of what leaders and followers offer one another. Transformational leaders offer a purpose that transcends short term goals and focuses on higher order intrinsic needs. Transactional leaders focus on the proper exchange of resources. If transformational leadership results in followers identifying with the needs of the leaders, the transactional leader gives followers, something they want in exchange for something the leader wants (Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987). Bass (1985) based his theory of transformational leadership on Burns conceptualization with several modifications. Bass did not agree with Burns that transformational and transactional leadership represent opposite ends of a single continuum. He argued that transformational and transactional leadership are separate concepts and further argued that the best leaders are both transformational and transactional. Although numerous other leadership theories continue to attract the attention of organizational researchers transformational leadership theory has garnered most of the attention in recent leadership research. As its name implies, transformational leadership is a process that changes and transform individuals. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, and standards and includes assessing followers’ motives satisfying their needs and treating them as full human beings. This involves an exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them. It is a process that often incorporates charismatic and visionary leadership. Bass has suggested that through the transformational leadership components a leader is able to transform subordinate motivation and improve performance beyond initial expectations. This is believed to be accomplished through raising the perceived importance and values of designated subordinate outcomes. Second, transformational leaders often motivate followers to transcend their own self- interest and expend energy on behalf of the group or organization. Finally, transformational leaders are believed to have some influence in altering or expanding followers needs. Transformational leaders attempt to instill pride, faith and respect in his or her followers. They also have a clear sense of mission that they attempt to convey to their followers. They are typically willing to delegate projects, in order to stimulate and create learning experiences and to treat each follower with respect as a unique individual. They frequently provide ideas that result in a rethinking of old patterns of behavior and enable to look at problems from different angles and resolve those problems in new and novel ways. The transformational leader inspires and motivates followers to perform beyond their self interest and to work toward a kind of greater good by appealing to a set of higher ideals and moral values and through buying into clearly communicated visions and goals.(Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban Metcalfe, 2001; Bass, 1996;Bass 1985; Tracey and Hinkin, 1998; and Wofford et.al., 2001). Transformational leaders attempt to engage the commitment of employees in the context of shared values and a shared vision. Transformational leadership in educational systems has been shown to have a positive impact on levels of trust, commitment, citizenship behavior, besides augmenting the transactional leadership in predicting levels of commitment, trust and satisfaction, which in turn predicted hard measures of institution’s performance (Koh, 1990). Transactional leaders are considered to be those who focus on the motivation of followers through rewards or discipline, clarifying for their followers, the kinds of rewards that should be expected for various behaviors. These leaders actively monitor deviance from standards, mistakes and errors or sometimes they may passively wait for followers to do something wrong (Bass and Avolio, 1994) The transactional leader does not individualize the needs of subordinates, nor focuses on their personal development. Transactional leaders tend to focus on the short term, physical and security needs of subordinates. Because they operate predominantly through an economic exchange mode, transactional leaders are often seen as reactive rather than proactive (Bass 1985). The bulk of research on establishing positive transactions and exchanges between leaders and followers indicates that followers who work with leaders who set clearly defined expectations and agreed-on levels of performance are more likely to achieve their goals than are followers who work with leaders who do not clearly define goals and expectations. Positive transactions in the form of contingent reward leadership positively relates to follower satisfaction and performance (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover and Huber, 1984).Effective transactional leadership can create the “conditions”on which deeper levels of trust are formed. Objectives The present study was undertaken with the following major objectives: 1. To investigate the relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and leadership behavior of college principals. 2. To investigate whether differences in leadership behavior of college principals would account for significant differences in work motivation of degree college teachers. 3. To study the main effect of leadership behavior of college principals on work motivation of degree college teachers. Method Hypotheses 1. There is no significant relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and leadership behavior of their principals.

2. There is no significant relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and transformational leadership behavior of their principals 3. There is no significant relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and transactional leadership behavior of their principals. 4. There is no significant difference in work motivation of degree college teachers working under principals having high and low leadership behavior. 5. There is no significant difference in work motivation of degree college teachers working under principals having high and low transformational leadership behavior. 6. There is no significant difference in work motivation of degree college teachers working under principals having high and low transactional leadership behavior. 7. Levels of leadership behavior of principals do not account for significant difference in work motivation of degree college teachers. Tools For the purpose of the present study, we have used two tools, as shown in Table 1, namely Work Motivation Questionnaire by K G Agarwal, adapted and standardized by Tara Sabhapathy and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire by Bernard M. Bass, adapted and standardized by Louis George. Sample The population for the study consists of all the degree college teachers in various colleges of Bangalore city, namely1) Government, 2) Private aided and3) Private unaided respectively. A sample of 450 teachers, 150 from each of the three categories of colleges were selected by stratified random sampling technique. The sample gave representation to male and female teachers as indicated in Table 2. Data analysis From table 3 it can be seen that the obtained r values of transformational leadership behavior 0.570, transactional leadership behavior 0.522 and the total leadership behavior 0.589 are higher than the table value 0.115 at 0.01 level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is formulated that there is a significant relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and transformational, transactional and total leadership behavior of their principals. The results of the present study is corroborated with the findings of Winter, Richard and Sarros (2002) who reported that work environment in academics is motivating when roles are clear, job tasks are challenging, and supervisors exhibit a supportive leadership style. From table 4 it is observed that the obtained ‘t’values 11.844, 8.956, 10.289, 9.655, 8.431, 6.509 and 9.000 for the total work motivation and all its factors are above the table value 2.59 at 0.01 level of significance. So the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypotheses is formulated. The table further revealed that the teachers whose principals had high leadership behavior (M=103.789, M=20.463, M=21.030, M=15.296, M=17.566, M=16.738 and M=12.695) had higher levels of work motivation, than teachers whose principals had low leadership behavior. (M=89.483, M=16.944, M=17.824, M=12.866, M=15.871, M=14.940 and M=11.036). From table 5 it is observed that the obtained ‘t’values 11.582 and 9.963 are higher than the table value 2.59 at 0.01 level of significance. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is formulated that there is a significant difference in work motivation of degree college teachers working under principals exhibiting transformational and transactional leadership behavior. The table further revealed that the teachers whose principals had high transformational and transactional leadership behavior (M=103.493 and M=103.070) had higher levels of work motivation, than teachers whose principals had low transformational and transactional leadership behavior. (M=89.412and M=90.600) respectively. Results From the study we arrived at the following findings. 1. There was a significant positive relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and leadership behavior of their principals. (r=0.59) 2. There was a significant positive relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and transformational leadership behavior of their principals. (r=0.57) 3. There was a significant positive relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and the transactional leadership behavior of their principals. (r=0.52) 4. There was a significant difference in the work motivation of degree college teachers as per differences in the leadership behavior of their principals. Degree college teachers whose principals showed high leadership behavior (M=103.79) are more motivated than teachers whose principals showed low leadership behavior (M=89.48). 5. There was a significant difference in the work motivation of degree college teachers and the transformational leadership behavior of their principals. Degree college teachers whose principals showed high transformational leadership behavior (M=103.49) are more motivated than teachers whose principals showed low transformation leadership behavior (M=89.41).

6. There was a significant difference in the work motivation of degree college teachers and the transactional leadership behavior of their principals. Degree college teachers whose principals showed high transactional leadership (M=103.07) behavior are more motivated than teachers whose principals showed low transactional leadership behavior (M=90.60). 7. There was a significant main effect of leadership behavior of college principals on work motivation of degree college teachers. Discussion The study reveals that there is a significant positive correlation between work motivation of degree college teachers and transformational and transactional leadership behavior of principals. Leadership is an integral part of effective management. A transformational leader can transform a lackluster group into a successful organization. College principals should create a strong urge in their teachers for higher performance They should lift their teacher’s visions to higher heights by showing the proper way to do the job. A principal should breathe life into the group and influence the behavior of teachers in such a way that they readily work for organizational objectives. Therefore principals should exhibit more of transformational leadership behavior to motivate teachers. Limitations The study was limited to a sample of 450 degree college teachers. The total population of male and female degree college teachers at the time of data collection was 7459 working in 267 colleges of Bangalore city. As the city of Bangalore is growing fast the demand for more degree colleges and recruitment of teachers is also on the rise. Therefore the selection of a limited sample of teachers is a limitation in the present study. The sample was limited due to practical constraints such as time, effort and cost. The independent variables selected for the study have been limited to one in order to study that in depth and examine the effect of this on Work motivation of degree college teachers. Degree college teachers in rural colleges were not considered in this study. Implications The study revealed that there was significant positive relationship between work motivation of degree college teachers and the transformational and transactional leadership behavior of college principals. The knowledge base for institutional leadership has risen exponentially and has contributed significantly to our understanding of how transformational and transactional leadership affects the work motivation of teachers. An effective educational system needs highly motivated teacher’s lead by a principal with transformational and transactional leadership behavior, who initiates the climate for the optimum work motivation. Johnson (1984) indicated that some of the administrative actions and characteristics that have favorable impacts on teachers include equitable distribution of resources, assignment of administrative responsibilities, expertise, and personal example and expressed personal interest. Transformational leaders should instill pride, faith and respect in his or her followers. They should have a clear sense of mission that they attempt to convey to their followers. They should be typically willing to delegate authority, in order to stimulate and create learning experiences and to treat each teacher with respect as a unique individual. They should frequently provide ideas that will result in a rethinking of old patterns of behavior and enable teachers to look at problems from different angles and resolve those problems in new and novel ways. Transformational leaders should display enthusiasm, optimism and team spirit. Transactional leaders on the other hand would tend to focus on the short term, physical and security needs of subordinates, operating through an economic exchange mode; are often seen as reactive rather than proactive (Bass 1985). It is desirable that college principals primarily depict transformational leadership at developing work motivation in teachers, though they may occasionally make use of transactional practices to augment their more common transformational behaviors.   References · Avolio, B.J. & B.M. Bass, (2002), Developing potential across a full range of leadership; cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Mahwok, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Barbuto Jr., John E.; Fritz, Susan M.; Marx, David,( 2002), A Field Examination of Two Measures of Work Motivation as Predictors of Leaders' Influence Tactics, Journal of Social Psychology, 142, p60 Bass B. M and Avolio B J, (1990); Developing transformational Leadership; Journal of European Industrial Training, p 1421-1427. Bass, B.M. (1996), A new paradigm of leadership: an inquiry into transformational leadership, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Becker Jeffrey; Ayman Roya; Korabik Karen,( 2002), Discrepancies in self/subordinate’s perceptions of leadership behavior, Group and organization management, 27 , p 226. Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio; Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, IInd edition, (2000); Mind garden Inc. p 1-51. Daniel Cable and Timothy A Judge, (2003); Managers’ Upward influence tactic strategies: The role of Manager personality and supervisor leadership style; Journal of Organizational Behavior; 24, p 197-214. Douglas J Brown and Lisa M Keeping; Elaborating the Construct of Transformational Leadership: The role of Affect (2005) ; Leadership Quarterly; 16, p 245-272. Geyer and Steyrer; Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks , (1998) Applied Psychology,47, p 397-420. Henry E Garrett, Woodworth R S, Statistics in psychology and education, 4th edition, (1967), Vakils, Feffer and Simmons (P) Ltd, p 201, 461. Hetland and Sandal, Gro M,; Transformational leadership in Norway; Outcomes and personality correlates, (2003) European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, p 147-170. Ingram, Patreese D,; Leadership behaviors of principals in inclusive educational settings, (1997) Journal of Educational Administration, 35, p 411. John Antonakis, Bruce J Avolio and Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam; Context and Leadership: An examination of the 9 factor full range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, (2003) The leadership Quarterly, , 14; p 261- 295. Latham, Gary P.; Ernst, Christopher T, Keys to motivating tomorrow's workforce. (2006) Human Resource Management Review,16, p181-198.

Lesney, Jacqueline Jo, (1997); Perceptions of transformational leadership behaviors in selected successful elementary principals: Dissertation Abstracts, 138. Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam; Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership; A meta analytic review of the MLQ literature, (1996) Leadership Quarterly, 7(3),p 385-425 Mittal J.P; Teachers motivation to work, 1st edition, (1995), Mittal Publications, p 25- 33. Nadir, Jennie, Miriam, The Value of transformational leadership in an exemplary school district in Ohio: Examination of conditions processes and practices associated with school improvement, (1997) p 143. Noel M Tichy and Mary Anne Devanna; The transformational leader, (1986); John Wiley and Sons, p 122-178. Patric Low Kim Cheng, Motivation, the Chinese leadership way in Singapore’s small and medium companies, (2006), Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5, p.80-87 Peter G Northhouse; Leadership –Theory and practice, IIIrd Edition, (2003), Sage publications, p169-200. Price Terry L; The Ethics of transformational leadership,(2003) Leadership Quarterly, 14,p 67. Sosik , Avolio and Kahai; Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment, (1997), Personnel Psychology, 50, p 121-146. Timothy A Judge and Joyce E Bono; Five factor model of personality and transformational leadership, (2000), Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, p 751-765. Timothy A Judge and Ronald F Piecolo; Transformational and transactional leadership; A meta-analytic test of their relative validity,( 2004) Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, p 755-76. Table 1 Showing Variables, Tools and Authors Sl.No

Variables

Tools of the study

1

Work Motivation

Work Motivation Questionnaire by K.G.Agarwal, adapted and standardized by Dr.Tara Sabapathy.

2

Leadership Behavior

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) by Bernard M Bass adapted and standardized by Dr.Louis George

Table 2 Showing the distribution of sample according to type of Management and Gender Gender

Type of Management

Total

Government

Aided

Unaided

Male

71

85

75

231

Female

79

65

75

219

Total

150

150

150

450

Table 3 showing the variables, size (N), df, and coefficient of correlation ‘r’ and its significance at 0.05 and 0.01 levels between Work Motivation scores of degree college teachers and Leadership Behavior of their principals viz; Transformational and Transactional Variables

N

df

r-value

Level of Significance

Transformational Leadership Behavior

450

448

Transactional Leadership Behavior

450

448

0.522

**

Leadership Behavior-Total

450

448

0.589

**

Work Motivation and Leadership Behavior 0.570

**

**Significant at 0.01 level Table 4 showing the ‘N’ , Mean, SD and t values of Work Motivation scores and its factors of degree college teachers working under principals having high and low Leadership Behavior. Sl.

Variables

N

Mean

Sd

t-value

No 1

2

Level of significance

Work Motivation

233

103.789

11.799

 

 

High leadership behavior

 

 

 

 

 

Low leadership behavior

217

89.483

13.799

11.844

**

 

 

 

 

Dependence

233

20.463

4.198

 

 

High leadership behavior

 

 

 

8.956

**

Low leadership behavior

217

16.944

4.127

 

 

3

4

5

6

7

 

 

Organizational Orientation

233

21.030

2.911

 

 

High leadership behavior

 

 

 

10.289

 

Low leadership behavior

217

17.824

3.675

 

**

 

 

 

Work Group Relations

233

15.296

2.665

 

 

High leadership behavior

 

 

 

9.655

 

Low leadership behavior

217

12.866

2.669

 

**

 

 

 

Psychological Incentives

233

17.566

1.913

 

 

High leadership behavior

 

 

 

 

 

Low leadership behavior

217

15.871

2.343

8.431

**

 

 

 

 

Material Incentives

233

16.738

2.422

 

 

High leadership behavior

 

 

 

 

 

Low leadership behavior

217

14.940

3.388

6.509

**

 

 

 

 

Job Situation

233

12.695

1.665

 

 

High leadership behavior

 

 

 

 

 

Low leadership behavior

217

11.036

2.221

9.000

**

 

 

 

 

** Significant at 0.01 level Table 5 showing the ‘N’, Mean, SD and t values of the Work Motivation scores of degree college teachers working under principals having high and low Transformational and high and low Transactional Leadership Behavior.

Sl.

Variables

N

Mean

SD

‘t’ value

Level of signific-ance

No 1

Work Motivation

 

 

 

 

 

High Transformational leadership behavior

239

103.493

11.716

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.582

**

211

89.412

14.063

Work Motivation

 

 

 

 

 

High Transactional leadership behavior

 

 

 

 

 

Low Transformational leadership behavior

2

Low Transactional leadership behavior

**Significant at 0.01 level

ISSN: 1533-7812

227

103.070

12.505

 

 

 

223

90.600

14.013

9.963

**